Captain’s Day Disqualification

[Pants]

Surely, if one group takes shelter whilst others are battling on against the elements, then they are seeking an advantage and therefore should, imo, be penalised.

 

[rulie]

Could they continue without a marker, bearing in mind Clarification 3.3b/1 states:

"The purpose of a marker is to certify that a player's score for each hole is correctly shown on the player's scorecard. If a marker is not with the player for the entire round, the scorecard cannot be properly certified.

For example, if a player plays several holes without their marker and the marker enters the player's scores for the holes the player played alone, the scorecard cannot be properly certified under Rule 3.3b.

The player should have insisted that the marker accompany the player for all of the holes. If the marker was unable to do so, the player should have asked another person to serve as their marker. If that was not possible, the player was required to stop play and report to the Committee so that another marker could be assigned."

In this case, the player seems justified in stopping play after all?

This provides guidance for a player who wants to continue when the rest of his group chooses to stop/quit.
And recall that a marker is not a referee, and does not need to witness every stroke the player makes. The marker's responsibility is to record the score that the player reports at completion of the hole.

 

[Swango1980]

This provides guidance for a player who wants to continue when the rest of his group chooses to stop/quit.
And recall that a marker is not a referee, and does not need to witness every stroke the player makes. The marker's responsibility is to record the score that the player reports at completion of the hole.

It does, and so surely it is relevant here? A player wants to continue, but the rest of his group has chosen to stop. It was suggested that the player could perhaps have continued without a marker until they catch up with the group in front, yet this clarification seems to suggest, fairly clearly, that this is not an acceptable solution.

 

[ADB]

What would happen if the situation occurred in a professional game (as unlikely as it would be as they just wouldn't, and if they did they'd have a referee chasing them on)?

Last day of a Major, and it starts to rain pretty heavily. Play continues and most players struggle on. Caddies desperately trying to keep grips dry, brollies up, waterproofs on, etc. However, the last group decide to take shelter for 15 minutes under some trees, to keep dry during the worst part.

I suspect there would be no choice but to DQ those players? And if so, then the rule has been applied in the same way in this case.

A good point was made about whether all 3 players should be DQed? In other words, what if one player wished to continue, but the other 2 were pretty adamant they wanted to stay dry, and so refused to do so. In that case, could the Committee reverse the DQ of that single player, after finding out the facts afterwards?

I remember this happening at St George’s when Darren Clarke won the Open Championship - a squall came in and it was throwing it down, everyone looked busy putting on rain gear, keeping grips dry etc but they kept the momentum of movement going and had to play whilst the rain was sideways. It was canny to try and delay playing, but ultimately they had to continue even if everyone knew things would clear up in a few minutes.

 

[rulefan]

It does, and so surely it is relevant here? A player wants to continue, but the rest of his group has chosen to stop. It was suggested that the player could perhaps have continued without a marker until they catch up with the group in front, yet this clarification seems to suggest, fairly clearly, that this is not an acceptable solution.

It only says that the one player who would be without a marker is required to stop play and report to the Committee so that another marker can be assigned.

That would mean he would not be subject to DQ. But the others would.

 

[Swango1980]

I only says that the one player who would be without a marker is required to stop play and report to the Committee so that another marker can be assigned.

That would mean he would not be subject to DQ. But the others would.

Yes, that was the topic of initial question, I.e. could one player avoid DQ if they only stopped because the other 2 stopped for shelter, thus leaving him no choice.

And, presumably, if they continued on their own, without a marker, then they would have no choice but to get DQed

 

[sunshine]

What would happen if the situation occurred in a professional game?

If it was a young unknown amateur he would be disqualified.
If it was Patrick Cantlay, nobody would notice.
If it was Rory, everyone would blame his caddy and tell him to get a "professional" caddy.
If it was Tiger, the tv cameras would spend the 15 minutes zoomed in on the rain dripping off his umbrella and commentators would start analysing the flow of drips.

 

[Tashyboy]

Bit late to the party on this one. But I would be interested to know who the eventual winner was
That said. Yes they sheltered under the trees but who is to say others didn’t on the course. It’s a summers day then all of a sudden it bladders it down. It’s a couple or three minutes to put up brolly and put on trousers and coat, so they held up their own play for what 10 mins and got DQ’d. Another thing. If a full clubhouse is watching them why did one person not go out and tell them to carry on or they could be DQ’d.
Either way I don’t think it has been handled very well.

 

[Colin L]

....If a full clubhouse is watching them why did one person not go out and tell them to carry on or they could be DQ’d....

Because they'd get wet, perhaps?

 

[Swango1980]

Bit late to the party on this one. But I would be interested to know who the eventual winner was
That said. Yes they sheltered under the trees but who is to say others didn’t on the course. It’s a summers day then all of a sudden it bladders it down. It’s a couple or three minutes to put up brolly and put on trousers and coat, so they held up their own play for what 10 mins and got DQ’d. Another thing. If a full clubhouse is watching them why did one person not go out and tell them to carry on or they could be DQ’d.
Either way I don’t think it has been handled very well.

Let's say someone got DQed for cheating. Sure, they kicked their ball out of the rough, but who is to say others on the course didn't do the same thing?